skynews business now quoting 35000 job losses, page-12

I don't know. I think the opposition response yesterday was lame too. As to the deficient amount, well that's smoke and mirrors to.

As to the opposition claiming that they left a $20B surplus, well in a GFC what would people expect, more surpluses? The opposition claimed 8% unemployment would result from gov policies, it didn't even reach 6%. And of course, the mining industry claims it saved Oz! Go figure...

The whole argument, from all sides is full of half truths and accounting slight-of-hand, so to pick on one side only is nonsense in my book.

BTW, claiming 30,000 (sorry, 35,000!) lost jobs, is nonsense, you can't lose jobs that never existed in the first place. In other words, do the projects, employ the people, then sack them all - that's 30,000/whatever jobs lost. Another example? I lost a small fortune this morning, or at least I would have if I had "invested" in a dog and sold it a loss - doesn't make it reality if it hasn't actually happened.

Which leads to my final point. The deficits are based on forecasts, which is why the 8% unemployment rate was wrong (didn't stop the Libs crowing about how the gov let everyone down though). The growth forecasts a year or so ago were also termed, especially by the Libs, as too high and unrealistic. But of course, they weren't. Now the forecasts into the future are questioned again, by the libs, although those numbers come from the Treasury. Hocking admitted that although he felt the Treasury numbers were effectively rubbery and unrealistic, the Libs had to use them as they were the only indicators available - geez, you burn your opponent about rubbery figures, then you use them as indicators yourself - hypocrisy? No, sorry, POLITICS!